Organic Universe

Thursday, July 31, 2014

As
Ebola spreads mercilessly across the world, it appears Florida has a
problem that sounds just as awful. As CBS reports, Florida health
officials are warning beachgoers about a seawater bacterium that can
invade cuts and scrapes to cause flesh-eating disease. At least 11
Floridians have contracted Vibrio vulnificus so far this year and two
have died, according to the most recent state data.

Never before have we seen so much death along the west coast of North
America. Massive numbers of sea stars, bluefin tuna, sardines,
anchovies, herring, oysters, salmon, marine mammals and marine birds are
dying, and experts are puzzled. We are being told that we could even
see “local extinctions” of some of these sea creatures. So are all of
these deaths related? If so, what in the world could be causing this to
happen? What has changed so dramatically that it would cause massive
numbers of sea creatures to die along the west coast?

The following are 15 examples of this phenomenon. Most scientists do
not believe that these incidents are related. But when you put them
all together, it paints quite a disturbing picture…

#1 A “mystery plague” is turning sea stars all along the west coast of the United States and Canada into piles of goo…

Sea stars, commonly referred to as starfish, have been
dying off in alarming numbers along the entire West Coast, from Baja,
Mexico, to Alaska. According to reports from the Seattle Aquarium, some
parts of Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands have seen population
declines of up to 80 percent.

On the Oregon coast, according to CoastWatch Volunteer Coordinator
Fawn Custer, “Last December, we had less than 1 percent of sea star
wasting. By May 1, more than 5 percent of sea stars were affected. Now, I
would say, in some areas, it is up to 90 percent.”

Pacific sardine populations have shown an alarming
decline in recent years, and some evidence suggests anchovy and herring
populations may be dropping as well.

The declines could push fishermen toward other currently unmanaged
“forage fish,” such as saury, smelt and sand lance, stealing a critical
food source relied on by salmon and other economically important
predators.

In response, the Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering an
ecosystem-based management approach that recognizes the fundamental
role of forage fish in the Pacific marine food web. Tiny, but abundant,
these small schooling fish feed on plankton and, in turn, fill the
bellies of Oregon’s iconic marine species, including salmon, sharks,
whales, sea lions and sea birds.

From white-winged scoters and surf scoters to long-tailed
ducks, murres, loons and some seagulls, the number of everyday marine
birds here has plummeted dramatically in recent decades.

Scoters are down more than 75 percent from what they were in the late
1970s. Murres have dropped even more. Western grebes have mostly
vanished, falling from several hundred thousand birds to about 20,000.

#6 Those that work in the seafood industry on the
west coast are noticing some very “unusual” mutations. For example, a
red king crab that was recently caught in Alaska was colored bright blue.

#7 Pelicans along the California coastline are “refusing to mate“.
This is being blamed on a lack of fish for the pelicans to eat. As a
result, we are seeing less than one percent of the usual number of baby
pelicans.

#15 According to a study conducted by researchers at
Oregon State University, radiation levels in tuna caught off the coast
of Oregon approximately tripled in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Could it be possible that at least some of these deaths are related to what has been happening at Fukushima?

We do know that fish caught just off the shore from Fukushima have been tested to have radioactive cesium that is up to 124 times above the level that is considered to be safe.

And we also know that a study conducted at the University of South
Wales concluded that the main radioactive plume of water from Fukushima
would reach our shores at some point during 2014.

Is it so unreasonable to think that the greatest nuclear disaster in
human history could have something to do with the death of all of these
sea creatures?

Just consider what one very experienced Australian boat captain
discovered when he crossed the Pacific last year. According to him, it
felt as though “the ocean itself was dead“…

The next leg of the long voyage was from Osaka to San
Francisco and for most of that trip the desolation was tinged with
nauseous horror and a degree of fear.

“After we left Japan, it felt as if the ocean itself was dead,” Macfadyen said.

“We hardly saw any living things. We saw one whale, sort of rolling
helplessly on the surface with what looked like a big tumour on its
head. It was pretty sickening.

“I’ve done a lot of miles on the ocean in my life and I’m used to
seeing turtles, dolphins, sharks and big flurries of feeding birds. But
this time, for 3000 nautical miles there was nothing alive to be seen.”

In place of the missing life was garbage in astounding volumes.

“Part of it was the aftermath of the tsunami that hit Japan a couple
of years ago. The wave came in over the land, picked up an unbelievable
load of stuff and carried it out to sea. And it’s still out there,
everywhere you look.”

What do you think?

Is Fukushima to blame, or do you think that something else is causing massive numbers of sea creatures to die?

Two people died and several hundreds were forced to evacuate as surging
floodwaters submerged villages in Romania on Tuesday. Footage filmed in
Arges County on Wednesday showed emergency workers rescuing people
stranded by the floods, wrecked buildings and overflowing rivers.

In the previous Space News, we discussed astronomer’s recent
admission that they now need a whole new theory to explain how planets
form. Today yet another discovery has shattered conventional ideas about
planet formation and the so-called early solar system. Scientists
studying data from NASA’s Dawn spacecraft have learned some astonishing
details about the asteroid Vesta. The Standard Model states that the
asteroid came into existence at the same time as the solar system.
However, key predictions of this model have been falsified by the Dawn
data.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Due in part to a petition submitted by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), one government agency has come to its senses, agreeing to eliminate bee and butterfly-toxic neonicotinoids in the Pacific Region of the NW Wildlife Refuges.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) very quietly announced that
it will phase out neonicotinoid insecticides (neonics) in wildlife
refuges in the Pacific Region, including Hawaii and other Pacific
Islands, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Within the new policy, all
refuge managers will be asked to exhaust all alternatives before
allowing the use of neonics within the lands of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This will be the first US government agency to actually move toward a complete ban that is needed to protect our pollinating insects and birds from possible extinction due to pesticide use.

This monumental step has happened due to a February, 2014 petition
filed by CFS asking FWS to ban the use of neonicotinoids on wildlife
refuges. (You can see more than 10 other wildlife refuges on the FWS
site, here.) The remaining sites will still be unprotected from neonic use. This is; however, a step which could be built upon itself.

Paige Tomaselli, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety states:

“FWS has taken a responsible and necessary first step in the Pacific region, but the agency must permanently institute this policy on all refuge lands across the country.
As our legal challenges have repeatedly stated, the costs of these
chemicals severely outweigh the benefits; we must eliminate their use
immediately.”

The FWS admits to “broad-spectrum
adverse effects” of using neonicotinoids, and found the practice at odds
with FWS’s policy of Integrated Pest Management (IMP). A study released
by CFS earlier this year found that neonicotinoid seeds treatment
rarely improved yields for corn and soybeans, corroborating the findings
of FWS. Perhaps they can submit their findings to the US Agricultural
Department for their review.

The phase out of neonics is to occur
by 2016, and refuge managers will have to have an approved Pesticide Use
Proposals (PUP) and completed Endangered Species Act consultation
documentation before using neonicotinoid pesticides, including the
planting of neonicotinoid-treated seed to grow agricultural crops. This is far from a complete ban, but again, a step in the right direction.

New study concludes that water shortages may be a bigger problem than we thought.

Fresh water supplies are under assault on multiple fronts. We are seeing the continuing fallout from the droughts in the Western U.S. and Brazil - both are incredibly important areas to the global food supply.

Knowing that both the climate and corporate influence
are converging to restrict and/or dramatically increase the cost of
fresh water, two new reports reinforce that there isn't much time left
to find solutions. In fact, for an increasing number of people, water
might not be available at any cost.

Three years of research show that by the year 2040
there will not be enough water in the world to quench the thirst of the
world population and keep the current energy and power solutions going
if we continue doing what we are doing today. It is a clash of competing
necessities, between drinking water and energy demand. Behind the
research is a group of researchers from Aarhus University in Denmark,
Vermont Law School and CNA Corporation in the US.

[...]

The team of researchers conducted their research focusing on four
different case studies in France, the United States, China and India
respectively. Rather than reviewing the situation on a national level,
the team narrowed in and focused on specific utilities and energy
suppliers. The first step was identifying the current energy needs, and
then the researchers made projections as far as 2040, and most of the
results were surprising. All four case studies project that it will be
impossible to continue to produce electricity in this way and meet the
water demand by 2040.

"If we keep doing business as usual, we are facing an insurmountable water shortage – even if water was free, because it's not a matter of the price.
There will no water by 2040 if we keep doing what we're doing today.
There's no time to waste. We need to act now", concludes Professor
Benjamin Sovacool. (emphasis added)

It is becoming impossible to say that it is fear-mongering to suggest a
near-term calamity, and that the way our water supply is currently
managed is a guaranteed-to-fail system. However, these new reports focus
purely on the failures of the energy sector; recommendations from the
researchers highlight the need for increased investment into wind and
solar, while increasing energy controls:

While it is true that wind and solar do not require cooling cycles and
would reduce power consumption and overall water usage, these industries
have other deficiencies,
as well as being susceptible to the same level of government control
and corruption. On a mass scale they are still centralized systems prone
to manufactured shortages and extreme inefficiency.

The reports' conclusions actually wind up highlighting the problems of
regulations and control, rather than making a strong case for new regulations and even more control.

Perhaps it is time to quickly seek out local solutions, such as the
ingenious model being developed in one of the world's most permanently
drought-stricken places: Ethiopia. Inventor Arturo Vittorini calls his
device Warka Water.
It is easy and fast to assemble ... and inexpensive. Each tower can
provide 25 gallons of water per day harvesting water directly from the
air.

Singapore is another place that was presented with unique challenges and
could be a microcosm of solutions to the greater problem.

In the ’60s and ’70s, Singapore was heavily reliant on imported water
from Malaysia and faced urbanisation challenges such as polluted rivers,
water shortages and widespread flooding.

They instituted the following 4 measures, which highlight how the
situation might be handled in heavily populated, modern urban
environments. While these might not be permanent solutions that could
apply everywhere, such measures have certainly extended the timetable
for Singapore, giving them time to develop even better technological
solutions with the goal of complete self-sufficiency.

Local catchments - With separate systems for drainage and
sewerage, Singapore’s rainwater is collected via a comprehensive
network of drains, rivers and canals, and stored in 17 reservoirs.

Recycling - NEWater (or recycled water) is produced from
treated used water that is further purified using membrane technologies
(microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet disinfection).

Desalination - Desalination is the process of treating
seawater with reverse osmosis. Last year, Singapore’s second
desalination facility opened – Tuaspring Desalination Plant. Boasting a
combined capacity of 100 million gallons of water a day, the two
plants meet up to 25 per cent of the current water demand.

Importing - One of the earliest solutions to Singapore’s
water problems was to import water from nearby Johor in Malaysia. To
facilitate this, two bilateral agreements were signed in 1961 and 1962
and, since then, water has been piped in via the Johor-Singapore
Causeway. While imported water once comprised a significant portion of
Singapore’s water supply, by the time the second agreement runs out
in 2061, it is expected that Singapore will have progressed
significantly towards self-sufficiency.

In another study, 1200 experts in 80 countries offered their solutions to water scarcity (read here).
Predictably, many focused on regulations, mitigation of climate change,
and population control, but other solutions focused on grassroots local
community organization with a heavy emphasis on new technology.

Water scarcity is an alarming prospect for all of us. The extended droughts, cumulative aspects of general human pollution, and corporate hoarding
are just some of the challenges creating a global problem in the
coming decades. With each new report coming from disparate sources, we
can all at least agree upon the need for a solution. Please tell us
yours in the comment section below.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The rapid depletion of Earth’s biodiversity indicates that the planet
is in the early stages of its sixth mass extinction of life since
becoming habitable 3.5 billion years ago, according to a new study
published in Science.

Human activity, including a doubling of its population in the
past 35 years, has driven the decline of animal life on Earth,
the researchers concluded.

There has been a 25 percent average decline rate of remaining
terrestrial vertebrates, and a 45 percent decline rate in the
abundance of invertebrates. These losses will continue to have
innumerable impacts on species that depend on the delicate
balance of life on Earth for their own survival.

“We tend to think about extinction as loss of a species from
the face of Earth, and that’s very important, but there’s a loss
of critical ecosystem functioning in which animals play a central
role that we need to pay attention to as well,” said Rodolfo
Dirzo, lead author of the study and a biology professor at
Stanford University.

“Ironically, we have long considered that defaunation is a
cryptic phenomenon, but I think we will end up with a situation
that is non-cryptic because of the increasingly obvious
consequences to the planet and to human wellbeing.”

The “Anthropocene defaunation,” as some researchers have
dubbed this era, is hitting large animals such as elephants,
polar bears, and rhinoceroses the hardest, as these megafauna are
the subject of some of the highest rates of decline on Earth.
This trend matches previous mass die-offs of the Big Five
extinction periods.

Megafauna usually have lower population growth rates that need
larger habitat areas to maintain their populations, thus they are
particularly affected by human growth and desire for their meat
mass. Losses among these animals often mean dire impacts for
other species that depend on them within an ecosystem.

Past studies have found that the loss of larger animals means a
spike in rodents, as grass and shrubs proliferate and soil
compaction decreases, all while the risk of predation also
declines, Futurity.org notes. As rodent populations
increase, so do the disease-transporting ectoparasites that come
with them.

“Where human density is high, you get high rates of
defaunation, high incidence of rodents, and thus high levels of
pathogens, which increases the risks of disease
transmission,” said Dirzo.

“Who would have thought that just defaunation would have all
these dramatic consequences? But it can be a vicious
circle.”

About 16 to 33 percent of all vertebrate species are considered
threatened or endangered, the review found.

Invertebrate loss also has far-reaching
ripple effects on other species. For example, the continued
disappearance of vital honeybee populations across the globe will
have bleak consequences for plant pollination, and thus on the
world’s food production, as RT has previouslyreported.

Insects pollinate about 75 percent of the world’s food crops,
according to Futurity.

Overall, of the world’s more than 71,000 species, 30 percent of
them are threatened, according to the International Union for
Conservation of Nature. Based on this assessment - and without
drastic economic and political measures to address the current
die-off - the sixth mass extinction could be cemented by 2400
A.D., University of California, Berkeley geologist Anthony
Barnosky told Harper’s magazine.

Solutions to the die-off are complicated, the study posits, as
reducing rates of habitat change and overexploitation of lands
must come through regional and situational strategies.

"Prevention of further declines will require us to better understand what species are winning and losing in the
fight for survival and from studying the winners, apply what we
learn to improve conservation projects," said
Ben Collen, a lecturer at the University College of London
and a co-author of the study. "We also need to develop
predictive tools for modelling the impact of changes to the
ecosystem so we can prioritize conservation efforts, working with
governments globally to create supportive policy to reverse the
worrying trends we are seeing."

Researchers from University of California, Santa Barbara;
Universidade Estadual Paulista in Brazil; Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico; the Natural Environment Research Council
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in England; and University
College London are coauthors of the new study.

"Countless kinds of harmful contaminants and toxic chemicals find their
way into the Gulf via the Mississippi which comes from many different
sources.
...This mighty river and it's many tributaries carry a tremendous chemical burden in the form of
industrial waste, as well as rain runoff laden with every chemical
imaginable from suburbia and cityscapes alike. Agribusiness has seen to
it that enormous amounts of chemical fertilizers and soil fortifiers,
pesticides and insecticides, mosquitocides and larvicides, fungicides
and herbicides, weedkillers and defoliants, bovine growth hormone and
animal antibiotics end up in the Mississippi. Likewise, a whole assortment of pharmaceutical drugs, over-the-counter medications, nutraceutical products,
as well as all the chemical compounds utilized in the typical American
household eventually find their way into the sewers of the nation's
midsection."

There have been several significant developments over the past few
decades in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) which now require special and
immediate attention. The multitude of oil spills - both large and small -
require extraordinary remediation measures, as well as the application
of safe and proven technologies which will not make the existing
hydrocarbon pollution worse. There are other major sources of water
pollution in the GOM which have also became apparent, particularly since
the eye-opening 2010 BP oil spill.

The BP Gulf Oil Spill drew the world's attention to the GOM for
a variety of reasons. The sheer volume of oil spilt was unprecedented,
as were its profound and lasting effects on a large geographic area.
Because it occurred in such a large body of water, many population
centers were adversely impacted as they continue to be up to this very
day. However, it was the incompetent and negligent oil spill response
from BP that received the justified scrutiny of the entire world.

Some have since advanced the notion that global oil spill response has
been forever changed for the better, because of how profoundly BP
mismanaged the spill for all to see. In this regard, they speak of a
literal sea change regarding the methodologies and modalities, process
and procedure, science and technology that are now accepted by many of
the nations of the world.

The entire world watched in horror as millions of gallons of the dispersant Corexit
were used to 'disappear' the gushing oil in the Macondo Prospect
throughout 2010 and beyond. Disappearing the oil actually meant sinking
it, after micronizing it, so that both BP and the US Federal Government
could be 'applauded' for a successful response. However, the known
health risks/dangers and environmental damage caused by Corexit became so well publicized that it has now been banned in those countries which have learned from the BP fiasco.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Zero Point, author Nafeez Ahmed speaks about the energy and economic
crisis that faces the world, and how martial law and political clampdown
is looming by the globe’s governments. Sustainable energy, the fossil
fuel recessions, protests (both through peaceful social media as well as
more violent measures), and the need for optimism that will transform
society for the better is all dealt with in this Lip News interview
hosted by Mark Sovel.

GUEST BIO:

Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is a bestselling author,
investigative journalist, international security scholar, policy expert,
filmmaker, strategy & communications consultant, and change
activist.The focus of Ahmed's work is to catalyse social change in the
public interest by harnessing radical, systemic approaches to
understanding the interconnections between the world's biggest problems,
while developing and highlighting holistic strategies for social
transformation. Whether it be foreign policy and terrorism, climate
change and energy, or food and the economy, Nafeez deploys the
techniques of critical, rigorous and interdisciplinary analysis to join
the dots and challenge power, with a view to bring forth constructive
change.

Nafeez is an environment writer for The Guardian, the
world's third most popular newspaper website, where he reports, comments
and analyses the geopolitics of interconnected environmental, energy
and economic crises at his Guardian hosted blog, Earth Insight.

He
is founding Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and
Development (IPRD), an independent nonprofit digital transmedia think
tank for the public interest. Currently, he is also Co-Director of The
Concordia Forum, an independent nonprofit think tank and leadership
network working to strengthen trans-Atlantic civil society partnerships.

Nafeez's
journalistic work combines insider information from senior government,
intelligence, industry and other sources with interdisciplinary analysis
of specialist literature. Over the last decade, he has broken
exclusives on FBI whistleblowers and pre-9/11 intelligence warnings; the
role of energy in the 2003 Iraq War; pre-7/7 intelligence failures; the
2006 liquid bomb plot; the link between the 'Arab Spring' and
ecological, economic and energy crises in the Middle East and North
Africa; the depletion of strategic mineral energy resources;
cutting-edge climate science; counter-terrorism strategy in the AfPak
region; sustainable rural development in Pakistan; the role of energy
crisis in the Israel-Palestine conflict; among many others.

Nafeez is
co-producer, writer and presenter of the critically-acclaimed
documentary feature film, The Crisis of Civilization (2011), adapted by
director and producer Dean Puckett from Nafeez’s latest book, A User’s
Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (Pluto,
Macmillan, 2010). Nafeez's other books include The London Bombings: An
Independent Inquiry(Duckworth, 2006); The War on Truth: 9/11,
Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (Interlink, 2005); Behind
the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq
(New Society, 2003) and The War on Freedom: How & Why America was
Attacked, September 11, 2001 (Progressive, 2002). The latter is archived
in the ‘9/11 Commission Materials’ Special Collection at theUS National
Archives in Washington DC – it was among 99 books made available to
each 9/11 Commissioner of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States to use during their investigations.

Expanding and strengthening the community forest rights of indigenous
groups and rural residents can make a major contribution to sequestering
carbon and reducing CO2 emissions from deforestation, according to a new report. The World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Rights and Resources Initiative
said that indigenous people and rural inhabitants in Latin America,
Africa, and Asia have government-recognized rights to forests containing
nearly 38 billion tons of carbon, equal to 29 times the annual
emissions of all the world’s passenger vehicles. By enforcing community rights to those forests,
the study said, governments can play a major role in tackling climate
change. In the Brazilian Amazon, for example, deforestation rates are 11
times lower in community forests than in forests outside those areas.
In areas where community forest rights are ignored, deforestation rates
often soar. The report made five major recommendations, from better
enforcement of community forest zones to compensating communities for
the climate and other benefits their forests provide.

WRI and the Rights and Resources Initiative studied 14 forest-rich
countries, including Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Nepal, Niger,
Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia. Indigenous people and other local communities currently have legal or official rights to 513
million hectares of forest, or about one-eighth of the world’s forest
cover. But the report said those rights are frequently ignored by
national or local governments, leading to severe deforestation. The
report cited the example of three indigenous forest lands in the Amazon
region of northwestern Peru. Despite supposed recognition of those
rights, the Peruvian government allocated indigenous lands to mining and
oil and gas drilling, leading to deforestation rates of 24 to 51
percent in those three community forest areas from 2000 to 2010.

In Papua New Guinea, the report said, all forests are owned by
communities, but the Papuan government has given leases to private
companies — often for oil palm plantations — on about 4 million
hectares, an area the size of Switzerland. Indonesia, which has one of
the world’s worst deforestation records, legally recognizes only 1
million of the 42 million hectares of forest reputedly controlled by
local communities.

By contrast, Brazil, which has half of the world’s remaining tropical
forests, is more rigorous about recognizing and protecting community
forests, the report said. Roughly 300 indigenous territories have been
legally recognized in Brazil, and protection of these areas, while not
perfect, is far better than in some other countries, according to the
report. That protection is crucial: The report noted that from 2000 to
2012, forest loss was 0.6 percent inside indigenous territories,
compared to 7 percent outside.

In parts of the Mexican Yucatan, deforestation rates are 350 times lower
than in unprotected areas, the report said. In Guatemala’s Peten
region, deforestation rates are 20 times lower.

“The bottom line is clear,” said Jennifer Morgan, director of the
Climate and Energy Program at WRI. “Strengthening community forest
rights is a critical policy approach to mitigate global climate change
through reduced deforestation and carbon sequestration.”

For example, the report said that fully protecting indigenous
territories and government forest reserves in the Brazilian Amazon could
prevent 27.2 million hectares from being deforested by 2050 — an area
larger than the United Kingdom. If the carbon in those forests were
released as CO2, it would amount to 12 billion tons of carbon dioxide —
equivalent to three years of CO2 emissions from Latin America and the
Caribbean.

The report made five major recommendations to enhance the ability of community forests to slow climate change:

Give communities legal recognition of their forest rights.

More rigorously enforce community forest rights, including mapping boundaries and evicting trespassers.

Provide forest communities with technical assistance to sustainably manage their forests and get forest products to market.

Involve forest communities in decisions involving investments in their forests.

Compensate communities for the benefits provided by their forests, including mitigating climate change.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

The recent article, GM scaremongering in Africa is disarming the fight against poverty,
published in the Guardian’s PovertyMatters Blog on 21 July 2014, is a
thinly veiled attack on those of us in Africa and elsewhere who are
deeply skeptical of the supposed benefits that genetically modified (GM)
crops will bring to the continent. Based on a report by London-based
think-tank Chatham House, it represents paternalism of the worst kind,
advancing the interests of the biotechnology industry behind a barely
constructed façade of philanthropy.

The report itself, compiled from an ‘expert roundtable’ and interviews
with donors, policy-makers, scientists, farmers and NGOs (none of whom
are identified), makes several erroneous and contradictory arguments
concerning the lack of uptake or impact of GM crops in Africa. Firstly,
with breathtaking arrogance, it dismisses the massive groundswell of
opposition to GM crops emerging across the globe (including here in
Africa) as a European-led phenomenon. It further credits lack of uptake
to a concerted campaign of ‘misinformation’ by opponents of GM crops and
onerous biosafety regulation, resulting in negative political judgments
and a ‘treadmill of continuous field trials’.

To take each in turn, perhaps the report’s authors were simply unaware
of global opposition to GM crops, or missed the recent Malawian civil
society response to Monsanto’s application to commercialise Bt cotton on
the country? Or dismissed the recent mass community protestors in
Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda as merely puppets of European NGOs? That
Mexico, the centre of origin of maize, has banned the cultivation of GM
maize within its borders was similarly overlooked, as was Peru’s 10-year
moratorium on GM crops, enacted in 2012. In 2013 India’s Supreme Court
declared an indefinite moratorium on all GM food crops, citing major
gaps in the country’s regulatory system, while protests led by farmer
groups in the Philippines have curtailed field trials of GM Brinjal
(aubergine).

Even in the United States public opposition to GM crops has been
growing for some time. Over 500,000 people have written to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calling for the rejection of Dow
Chemical’s application for several GM crops tolerant to 2,4-D based
herbicides. Unperturbed by the prospect of legal action from the
biotechnology industry, several States are pressing ahead with laws for
the labeling of GM food.

To argue that onerous laws and political expediency has created a
situation of ‘continual field trials’, as the Chatham House report does,
misunderstands or misrepresents several key issues at play. For
example, the report cites ‘stringent’ liability laws across the
continent as major hindrance to the research process.

Moreover, the vast majority of GM crops grown worldwide are either
tolerant to the application of herbicides, produce their own pesticides
(Bt crops) or are a combination of the two. There is good reason that
the ‘pipeline’ of new GM crops and traits, such as drought tolerant or
nutritionally enhanced African ‘orphan’ crops, has not materialized;
they are all profoundly more complex process than what has so far been
commercialized. The fabled ‘Golden Rice’ (engineered with extra vitamin
A) has been in development since the early 1990s. While this has been
going on, the government of the Philippines (one the target countries)
has been remarkably successful in lowering vitamin A deficiency using
cheap, low-tech solutions.

And here we get to the crux of the matter as citizens of Africa and the
global south. The obsession in promoting GM crops in Africa,
exemplified in this instance by the new Chatham House report, diverts
attention and resources away from a plurality of genuine and localized solutions and flies in the face of the recommendations of independent science.

The landmark IAASTD
report of 2008 (resulting from the input of over 400 global scientific
and agricultural experts) was highly dismissive of the potential of GM
crops to benefit the world’s poorest and most marginalized communities,
and called for a shift towards agro-ecological practices. These
sentiments have since been echoed by numerous individuals and
organisations, from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to
the United Nation’s Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report
of 2013, titled ‘wake up before it is too late’.

Research by the ETC group has shown that small-holder farmers produce
75% of the world’s food, but only use about 25% of the world’s
agricultural resources. The industrial agriculture chain only produces
about 25% of the world’s food but uses 75% of the planet’s agricultural
resources. Imagine the gains that could be made if even a fraction of
the resources propping up the industrial food system were channeled into
alternative systems.

Africans reject GMOs because the technology has not delivered on any of
its promises and poses significant long-term threats to our environment
and peoples. Though the issue of risk is given little attention in the
report, lest we forget that in late 2013 nearly 300 scientists and legal
experts from around the world signed a statement affirming that there
is “no scientific consensus on GMO safety”. That GM’s proponents can
claim to the contrary merely reflects the undue influence the
biotechnology industry has on the scientific process.

Further, are the philanthropists who are supporting GM development and
pressuring Africa to open up also heavy investors in the biotech sector?
For example, the relationship between Monsanto and the Gates Foundation
is well documented. Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta are all heavily
involved in the G8 New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition, the
sharp end of the Green Revolution push in Africa. No matter how much
these forces maneuver to seem altruistic rather than predatory, the
smoking gun always seems to be visible. The combined forces of Big
Agribusiness and Big Philanthropy have been so effective at pressuring
our governments that some of them see biosafety laws as mere instruments
to opening up our nations to the biotech industry and their local
surrogates.

The bottom line is that this is a fight for food sovereignty – for the
rights of people to grow food that suits their environment, protects
their biodiversity and serves their ability to eat foods that are
wholesome and culturally acceptable. Policies must support systems of
agriculture and food production that does not distort or damage local
economies.

We must not blindly or willfully promote policies that build
neocolonial structures that lock in poverty by upturning tested local
agricultural knowledge, promoting land grabs through large-scale
industrial farming and create dependency on artificial seeds and
chemicals. True food security can only be assured by food sovereignty.

'With its wingspan measured as 21 centimetres, the insect won the title
of the largest aquatic insect in the world,' reported Ecns.cn, the
official English-language service of the state-run China News Service.
(Zhong Xin/China News Service)

An insect with huge horn-like jaws and a wingspan similar to a
sparrow's has been reported by Chinese media as a record-breaking find.

"With its wingspan measured as 21 centimetres, the insect won the
title of the largest aquatic insect in the world," reported Ecns.cn, the
official English-language service of the state-run China News Service.

The website posted photos of the insect,
which was found in the mountains near Chengdu, in Sichuan province. One
shows the insect's lacy, patterned dragonfly-like wings stretched far
wider than the palm of the person holding it, and in another, a
modest-looking chicken egg sits nearby for scale.

The website says the photos were taken on July 17 and that the insect belongs to the taxonomic group or order Megaloptera
(a name that means large, folded wings). The group includes large
insects called dobsonflies or fishflies, along with smaller alderflies.

While the insect is claimed as the largest "aquatic" insect,
dobsonflies and alderflies only live in the water as a larvae or
juvenile – adults live on land. On the other hand, they spend only a few
days as adults. While the larvae are ferocious underwater predators,
the adults either don't eat or sip only nectar and fruit juice.

The elephant beetle is one of many insects that are likely far heavier
than the new 'largest aquatic insect.' (Udo Schmidt/Wikimedia Commons)

It also is nowhere near the biggest insect in the world in any dimension. According to the University of Florida Book of Insect Records, the
record for biggest wingspan — 30 centimetres — is held by the white
witch moth; and several giant beetles and grasshopper-like creatures
called giant wetas — all of which are huge and have far stockier builds
than the new dobsonfly — are the heaviest.

However, an insect quite similar, and not that much smaller than the
new Chinese insect, lives right here in Canada. The Eastern dobsonfly Corydalus cornutus
has a wing span of 14 centimetres and males have "sickle-shaped and
tusk-like mandibles" that are about four centimetres long, according to
entomologists Rob Cannings and Geoff Scudder of the Royal B.C. Museum.

Overall, there are 17 species of dobsonflies and alderflies in Canada.

The Eastern dobsonfly has a wingspan of up to 14 centimetres, and males
have 'sickle-shaped and tusk-like mandibles.' While it can be found in
Quebec, this specimen was collected in Ecuador. (Didier
Descouens/Wikimedia Commons)

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Numerous civil rights groups have sided with the internet provider
industry on the issue of net neutrality after getting lucrative
partnerships and financial support from telecommunications companies.

When the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) wrapped up its public discussion on a new net neutrality plan, 42
groups representing the interests of several ethnic minority groups had
come down on the side of industry, which wants to create faster
broadband services for companies willing to pay for them rather than
treat the internet like a public utility and allow equal access to all.

The groups claimed “A common carrier approach to broadband regulation
would slow down broadband adoption and stifle the growth and innovation
of the Internet. Regulating broadband under Title II [giving it common
carrier status] would also foster a climate of uncertainty, potentially
choke innovation and diminish investment,” in comments to the FCC.

“Simply put, these groups, many of which claim to carry the mantle of
Martin Luther King Jr., are saying that Comcast and Verizon should be
able to create Internet slow lanes and fast lanes, and such a change
would magically improve the lives of non-white Americans,” Lee Fang
wrote at Republic Report.

Those organizations siding with the telecoms include the NAACP, the
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Urban League, the
National Council on Black Civil Participation and the National Action
Network, the Council of Korean Americans and the Japanese American
Citizens League.

LULAC “has been a dependable ally of the telecom industry while
partnering with Comcast for a $5 million civic engagement campaign,”
Fang reports, while another group, OCA – Asian Pacific American
Advocates, has received significant contributions from Comcast.

And it is therefore no surprise that it has threatened to sue a small
coastal city in Maine which on Monday night struck an historical blow
against the industry by banning the export of tar sands from its
harbour.

The decision by South Portland to approve, by 6-1, to ban tar sands
exports, has catapulted this small coastal town which is famous for its
scenic light-houses against the collective might of the oil industry and
Canadian government.

The decision is another blow to the tar sands industry which is
desperate to find ways of getting its dirty carbon-munching oil to
market.

It effectively bars any attempt by the oil industry to bring oil from Alberta to the city’s port, the second-largest oil terminal on the east coast of the US.

The move has ramifications for the tar sands industry, because it was
planning to reverse the flow of the Portland-Montreal pipeline to carry
tar sands to the coast.

South Portland Mayor Jerry Jalbert told Reutersthe
vote was an exercise in local democracy. “From the perspective of a
locally elected official, it’s a simple issue. People fear this product
could be damaging to the community, and they have asked us to act.”

Hundreds of supporters, wearing light blue T-shirts had packed into
the hall where the vote was taking place. They were part of the
so-called “Clear Skies Ordinance” worried about local spills and the
impact of the tar sands on climate change.

One of the activists, Peg Dilley, from Casco, Maine, said: “This is
not just a South Portland issue. This is not just a great state of Maine
issue. This is an international issue.”

After the vote, activists were ecstatic, standing to applause the
local councillors. “This victory sends an important message to
communities around the country,” said Lisa Pohlmann,
executive director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine. “It shows
that we can stand up against a dirty, toxic form of energy, and that
it’s not inevitable.”

“We may be a small city, but, boy, we’ve done a big thing,” added
Mary-Jane Ferrier, spokeswoman for Protect South Portland, who led the
campaign. “We know it may not be over yet, and we’re committed to defend
this victory from oil industry attacks.”

It is only a matter of time before those legal attacks start coming.
The oil industry’s main lobbying organisation and attack-dog, the
American Petroleum Institute, earlier this year had warned South
Portland officials they would “face strong legal challenges,” if they
voted to ban oil exports.

Yesterday, they were said to be considering their options. Tom Hardison,
vice president of the company that runs the pipeline, said the vote was
“against jobs, energy and the waterfront,” and called it a “rush to
judgment.”

A recent accident highlights how state fracking laws protect corporate trade secrets over public safety.

On the morning of June 28, a fire broke out at a Halliburton fracking
site in Monroe County, Ohio. As flames engulfed the area, trucks began
exploding and thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals spilled into a
tributary of the Ohio River, which supplies drinking water for millions
of residents. More than 70,000 fish died. Nevertheless, it took five
days for the Environmental Protection Agency and its Ohio counterpart to
get a full list of the chemicals polluting the waterway. "We knew there
was something toxic in the water," says an environmental official who
was on the scene. "But we had no way of assessing whether it was a
threat to human health or how best to protect the public."

This episode highlights a glaring gap in fracking safety standards.
In Ohio, as in most other states, fracking companies are allowed to
withhold some information about the chemical stew they pump into the
ground to break up rocks and release trapped natural gas. The oil and
gas industry and its allies at the American Legislative exchange Council
(ALEC), a pro-business outfit that has played a major role in shaping
fracking regulation, argue that the formulas are trade secrets that
merit protection. But environmental groups say the lack of transparency
makes it difficult to track fracking-related drinking water
contamination and can hobble the government response to emergencies,
such as the Halliburton spill in Ohio.

According to a preliminary EPA inquiry,
more than 25,000 gallons of chemicals, diesel fuel, and other compounds
were released during the accident, which began with a ruptured
hydraulic line spraying flammable liquid on hot equipment. The flames
later engulfed 20 trucks, triggering some 30 explosions that rained
shrapnel over the site and hampered firefighting efforts.

Officials from the EPA, the Ohio EPA, and the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources (ODNR) arrived on the scene shortly after the fire
erupted. Working with an outside firm hired by Statoil, the site's
owner, they immediately began testing water for contaminates. They found
a number of toxic chemicals, including ethylene glycol, which can
damage kidneys, and phthalates, which are linked to a raft of grave
health problems. Soon dead fish began surfacing downstream from the
spill. Nathan Johnson, a staff attorney for the non-profit Ohio
Environmental Council, describes the scene as "a miles-long trail of
death and destruction" with tens of thousands of fish floating belly up.

Statoil and the federal and state officials set up a "unified
command" center and began scouring a list of chemicals Halliburton had
provided them for a compound that might be triggering the die off. But
the company had not disclosed those ingredients that it considered trade
secrets.

Even in these cases, only emergency responders and the chief of the ODNR's oil and gas division, which is known to be cozy with industry,
are entitled to the information. And they are barred from sharing it,
even with environmental agencies and public health officials.
Environmental groups argue this makes it impossible to adequately test
for contamination or take other necessary steps to protect public
health. "Ohio is playing a dangerous game of hide and seek with first
responders and community safety," says Teresa Mills of the
Virginia-based Center for Health, Environment, and Justice.

Within two days of the spill, Halliburton disclosed the proprietary
chemicals to firefighters and the oil and gas division chief, but it
didn't give this information to the EPA and its Ohio counterpart until
five days after the accident, by which time the chemicals had likely
reached or flowed past towns that draw drinking water from the Ohio
River. The company says that it turned over the information as soon as
it was requested. "We don't know why USEPA and Ohio EPA didn’t have the
information prior to July 3," Halliburton spokeswoman Susie McMichael
tells Mother Jones. "If they had asked us earlier, we would
have provided the information, consistent with our standard practice."
The Ohio EPA, on the other hand, maintains that ODNR, emergency workers,
and federal and state EPA officials had a representative ask Statoil
and Halliburton for a complete list of chemicals just after the spill.
Several days later, environmental regulators pressed for the information
again and learned that it had already been shared with only ODNR, which
according to the EPA report was not deeply involved in the emergency
response.

Other key players, including local water authorities, the private
company hired to monitor water contamination, and area residents, did
not get a full rundown of chemicals, even after the EPA and the Ohio EPA
finally received the information.

Ohio state officials maintain that the river water is safe to drink
because the fracking chemicals have been so heavily diluted. But
environmentalists are skeptical. "Tons of chemicals and brine entered
the waterway and killed off thousands fish," says Johnson of the Ohio
Environmental Council. "There's no way the drinking water utility or
anyone else could monitor those chemical and determine whether the
levels were safe without knowing what they were. Even today, I don't
think the public can be sure that the water is safe to drink."

Boulder County district court judge strikes down city of Longmont's fracking ban

A Colorado district court judge on Thursday invalidated
the city of Longmont's fracking ban, a decision celebrated by oil and
gas industry and denounced by critics who say it prioritizes the
extractive process over public health and the environment.

Longmont made a landmark move in 2012 when voters approved with strong support an amendment to the city’s charter to ban fracking.

The vote was promptly followed by a lawsuit
by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) challenging the ban.
State regulatory body Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and
locally-operating oil and gas company TOP Operating later joined the
suit.

In his ruling, Judge Mallard stated, "The Court is not in a position
to agree or disagree with any of these exhibits that support the
Defendants’ position that hydraulic fracturing causes serious health,
safety, and environmental risks."

"While the Court appreciates the Longmont citizens’ sincerely-held
beliefs about risks to their health and safety, the Court does not find
this is sufficient to completely devalue the State’s interest, thereby
making the matter one of purely local interest."

There is "an irreconcilable conflict" between the city's interest in
banning fracking and the state's interest in extraction," Mallard found.

Longmont's fracking ban "impedes the orderly development of Colorado’s mineral resources," and is invalid, the ruling states.

The judge also ordered the fracking ban to hold during the time allotted for appeals.

Tisha Schuller, head of COGA, said the decision was "something to celebrate for the industry."

But supporters of the fracking ban have vowed to continue their fight.

“While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s final decision, she
was correct that we were asking this Court, in part, to place protection
from the health, safety, and environmental risks from fracking over the
development of mineral resources,” stated Kaye Fissinger, President of
Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont, one of the intervenors for the
city in the lawsuit.

“It’s tragic that the judge views the current law in Colorado is one
in which fracking is more important than public health; reversing that
backwards priority is a long-term battle that we’re determined to
continue,” Fissinger stated.

Friday, July 25, 2014

As droughts have ravaged the western US for over a decade, much of
the water loss has come from underground resources in the Colorado River
Basin, a new study has found. The water loss may pose a greater threat
to the West than previously thought.

The study by NASA and the University of California, Irvine found
that more than 75 percent of the water loss in the
drought-stricken Colorado River Basin since late 2004 came from
underground resources. It is the first time researchers have
quantified the amount that groundwater contributes to the water
needs of western states, NASA said.

The research team measured the change in water mass monthly from
December 2004 to November 2013, using data from NASA's Gravity
Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission to
track changes in the mass of the Colorado River Basin. Changes in
water mass are related to changes in water amount on and below
the surface.

Image by University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling

In the nine-year study, the basin – which covers Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and California – lost
nearly 53 million acre feet (65 cubic kilometers) of freshwater,
almost double the volume of the nation's largest reservoir,
Nevada's Lake Mead. More than three-quarters of the total – about
41 million acre feet (50 cubic kilometers) – was from
groundwater, according to a statement by NASA on the project.
"We don't know exactly how much groundwater we have left, so
we don't know when we're going to run out," Stephanie
Castle, a water resources specialist at UC Irvine, and the
study's lead author, said in the
statement. "This is a lot of water to lose. We thought
that the picture could be pretty bad, but this was
shocking."

The Colorado River is the only major river in the southwestern
United States, and the water source is relied upon by 40 million
people. The surface water in the basin is regulated by the US
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), but the groundwater is regulated by
the individual states. Some states, like California, have no
groundwater management rules. Others, like Arizona, have gone so
far as to transfer surface water from the Colorado River into
underground aquifers for later use, the Washington Post reported.

The USBR, part of the Department of the Interior, allocates water
from the basin proportionally among the seven states. A study
completed by the agency in 2012 “confirmed what most experts
know: there are likely to be significant shortfalls between
projected water supplies and demands in the Colorado River Basin
in the coming decades,” the USBR said on its website.
Since then, the federal government, state governments, local
municipalities, and Native American reservations have worked
together to augment water supplies, conserve and reuse existing
water supplies, and plan for the future of the basin.
"We have made substantial progress addressing Colorado River
water management over the past several years," Reclamation
Commissioner Michael L. Connor said in a
statement. "From the interim guidelines for shortage and
surplus in 2007, the 2012 signing of Minute 319 to the treaty
with Mexico and the latest WaterSMART funding announcements
supporting new projects and studies, we remain focused on wise
use and new technologies to address upcoming gaps in supply and
demand."

But last week, USBR announced that Lake Mead – the reservoir
created by the Hoover Dam – had reached its lowest water level
since the lake’s initial filling in the 1930s. Since 2000, the
lake has lost 4 trillion gallons of water, according to CBS News.
It now sits 130 feet below the high-water mark last reached at
the turn of the century, and at 39 percent of total capacity.
Scientists have determined that the dry spell since 2000 in the
Colorado River Basin is one of the most severe in more than 1,200
years.
"It's time for us to wake up. If this drought continues,
we're going to be in a terrible situation within the next 12-24
months," Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist at NASA Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, told the
Desert Sun.

Famiglietti is currently on leave from UC Irvine, and is the
senior author of NASA’s groundwater depletion study. He noted
that the rapid depletion rate will compound the problem of short
supply by leading to further declines in streamflow in the
Colorado River, according to the statement.
"The Colorado River Basin is the water lifeline of the
western United States," Famiglietti said. "With Lake
Mead at its lowest level ever, we wanted to explore whether the
basin, like most other regions around the world, was relying on
groundwater to make up for the limited surface-water supply. We
found a surprisingly high and long-term reliance on groundwater
to bridge the gap between supply and demand."

At the current rate of water use by the seven states, the Bureau
of Reclamation has estimated that by 2017, there will be a 50-50
chance of lower water levels prompting the declaration of a
shortage. Starting in 2018, the estimated likelihood of reaching
that threshold – and cutbacks in water deliveries – rises to 60
percent, according to the Desert Sun.

Healthesound.info

ShelterSense.info provides Independent News in blog format to assist other activists, teachers, and elders with alternative news, information on social issues, and research material.

FAIR USE NOTICE: ShelterSense.info (website) may post copyrighted material not specifically authorized in accordance with Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law allowing purposes associating learning processes. Please be advised if you intend to use such copyrighted material for personal reasons beyond "fair use," considerations, please obtain permission from the copyright owner. Learning processes encompass a vast array of issues of concern and would not be restrictive, it would offer critique and extended scholarly research.

Website may display third party authors/advertising which may not represent the views or opinions of Website or contributors. Advertisements are not endorsed as such and are intended as alternative ways to support the work at Website.